New York: The Longest Shot

Disraeli observed that “there is no gambling like politics.” Even so, the odds may be a bit better in politics than they are in New York’s new game of chance, a state-sponsored lottery that was started this month with the intent of raising some $198 million a year for state education programs. Blackjack almost gives the sucker an even break; one-armed bandits may pay back as much as 50% of the take; even New York City’s illegal numbers racket offers the player a 999-to-l chance.

However worthy its object, New York’s state lottery, at $1 per chance, gives the bettor the remote odds of 4,000 to 1 merely to take a consolation prize (from $150 to $1,000), with odds of 1,000,000 to 1 on grand monthly jackpots of $100,000 and, if the expected total of tickets is sold, 360,000,000 to 1 on an annual “superprize” of $250,000. Besides, while even the numbers racketeers shell out 70% of the take for prize money, the state will pay back only 30% of the lottery lucre, reserving the rest for the schools and administrative costs.

Moral Support. What attracts the bettors, of course, is the size of the prizes, not the odds. Still, in two weeks of operation, about 4,000 hotels, motels and banks selling chances brought in less than $7,000,000—roughly half the rate of sale needed to fulfill the state’s income expectations. Although no neighborhood breakdowns were available, one bank chain said its sales were most brisk in low-income areas such as Harlem, thus stiffening criticism that the lottery will actually prove to be a form of regressive tax.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller—and the state’s voters in a referendum—approved the lottery as a fund-raising device to obviate the need for higher taxes, but some of Rockefeller’s opponents in Washington hoped to win politically from the game. Regarding Rockefeller as the most formidable opponent the Republicans could pit against the President in 1968, some White House aides hatched a plan that might cripple the lottery and embarrass the Governor.

House Banking Committee Chairman Wright Patman of Texas and New York Democrat John Murphy, who aspires to run for mayor of New York in 1969, pushed through the committee a bill to bar virtually all U.S. banks from taking any part in administering a lottery. Since New York banks now account for two-thirds of the lottery sales, the bill, if passed by Congress, would vastly increase the state’s overhead costs, perhaps force Rockefeller to an odious choice between reneging on school aid or raising taxes.

The bill may be a threat, but the lottery was accorded at least one gesture of eminent moral support last week. Boston’s Richard Cardinal dishing sent off a note to Francis Kelly, chairman of the Massachusetts Sweepstakes Committee, thanking him for a gift of 25 New York lottery tickets that Kelly had bought on a visit. Asked the Cardinal: “If we can have lotteries in Ireland, England and other countries in Europe, why cannot we have them in the U.S.?” Massachusetts is already thinking about it.